FORUMS

I feel that there are no real true masters in this age, as we are not in battlefield situations anymore like 1000 years ago, when people like Guan Yu, Liu bei and many other warriors had actual battle field experience. I feel that the skills of these ancient warriors had far surpassed the level of skill in the current generations of warriors skill levels of this time and age.

Id say that the whole idea of a warrior or general has changed so much since those days that they are almost incomparable. Yes ancient generals where hard out, but you got to remember that many modern U.S Marine generals have studied Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Napolean etc as well, they have learnt from thousands of years of combat, collated that information and it has influenced modern warfare in a great many ways. The tactics of 1,000 years ago are often irrelevant to modern warfare, however some of the fundemental philisophies or tactics are still very relevent.

Technology and the dispersion of infortmation via the internet etc has really changed things too. 1,000 years ago there where many secrets, in the world of Youtube and so forth today I doubt there are many "lost" arts or secret techniques. Humans are very good at learning and self analyzing, so I would argue that the skill level of modern warriors (of which there are many) would in many cases surpass their ancient counterparts. Look at Olympic records for instance, continually getting broken as training techniques, information and the human body itself improves over time. Imagine a Pankration gladiator from 200 B.C vs. A modern UFC MMA fighter...no offense to the gladiator but hes in for a big surprise and a lesson in a certain Brasilian art that didnt exist 500 years ago let alone a thousand! And of course remember that theres still Pankration fighters today, imagine how much that art alone would have evolved in that time.

For instance would I rather learn the gung fu of a thousand years ago or modern day street self defense? One has a whole lot of hand waving and the other looks a lot more like a modern close quarter combat art thats for sure, and I am unlikely to be attacked by a long pole or Chinese sabre on the way down to the dairy!

Did most ancient warriors and generals have more humbleness, wisdom and honor? Probably. But skill? I personally dont think so.

Im not really talking about warfare as in tactics, im meaning the skill level that they actually showed on the battlefield as individuals. And plus i dont see that a MMA fighter would do that well because they dont train in weapons, and most of the time MMA fighters go to ground which would be useless in battlefield situations with thousands of enermy soldiers with pikes and swords. And the Olympic games are just a sport, its not real battle with axes and shields and swords trying to kill you.

What im trying to say is they actually put there skills to use in real situations alot more than we do in Kwoon or Dojos when we know what exercise we are doing. These ancient warriors would of surpassed many today, as i see so many people on the net saying they are a master of something, yet they hav'nt really put it to use like the ancient battlegrounds of warrior verses warrior..its been shown in many archaelogical records that the ancients had stronger bones and teeth...Dr. Price had studied the teeth and dental arches of 12 cultures around the world, comparing the teeth of those who had eaten the traditional diets of their people to those who were raised on the modern diet of the West. We are blessed that this research was done, as today it would be nearly impossible to repeat. He had shown that our species was degenerating quickly on our modern food, and for reasons that I hadn’t expected. Not because of toxins, and not because of cooked foods. In fact, it was because of the inclusion of the poorly grown and highly refined products of agriculture (primarily refined carbohydrates), and the lack of high quality wild or pastured (grass fed) animal foods!http://s75492.gridserver.com/?p=2599&preview=true

So i think even the modern warrior of this present moment would find surprises in an ancient warrior.

Yes we aren't in battlefield situations, soldiers are. I wouldn't be surprised if a soldier or gladiator from 1000 years ago would have better practical experience up their sleeve with wielding a sword or pike of some sort. Just quickly on the stronger bones and teeth and such, I think you'll find the life expectancy for everyone back then was considerably shorter. As for skill levels of modern Masters, not really comparable today we use guns amd so on but Charles Upham (read Mark of the Lion)and Willie Apiata (I think we all know him) to name a few would be what your looking for as your modern battlefield Masters. I think Due to the law the only place to truely gain experience in your given martial art is in self defence in the street(or doing security and other such jobs,etc). The guys on ancient battlefields still had to train in their training ground before the battlefield where no mater how experienced his master/instructor the novice warrior still has to fluke a few battles with his second hand knowledge and more often then not rise through the ranks to get a shot at being remembered. As far as modern Kung Fu Master's or whatever other martial arts out there have masters go, if you don't believe they are a true Master don't call them Master. That came out sounding nasty.

These are my brief thoughts Hayden probably strayed a bit from the subject but oh well:D.

The average warrior on an ancient battlefield actually had quite low skill in terms of martial skill. This is because the average infantryman had to be quickly trained and cheaply armed. Look at most ancient infantry weapons, some are little more than pointed sticks (in fact some are pointed sticks!).

Also ancient tactics meant that warriors would have to work together to accomplish a goal, if one guy in the line had exceptional skill it was irrelivant because he had to hold the line and point his spear at the enemy just like everyone else, real life ancient battles and say the fight scene from Tai Chi Master (where Jet Li goes it alone and kicks a whole lot of enemy soldiers arses while the rest stand around watching) are a world apart. A Chinese infantryman had to hold his spear line, a Greek Hoplite had to hold his position in the Phalanx or the whole unit would be weakened, if anything the modern soldier has more of an individual effect on the outcome than his ancient predecessor, therefore necessitating he be trained to a higher degree. Look at the training that went into your average peasant to make him a lightly armoured infantryman. Now compare that to a U.S Marine Cobra pilo and tell me which one is more skilled. The one with the degree and hundreds of flight hours in a high tech attack chopper or the farmer who got taught which end of his spear to point at the charging enemy cavalery.

Check out what a Marine goes through in his training for example, now do you seriously think the average ancient infantryman got half that time and money spent on him? Let alone a SAS trooper like Lachlan mentioned above, say Corp. Apiata...hes had time to train for years and hone his skills, followed by using them in intense combat operations, most specialist troops in ancient times retired or died long before they gained veterancy. For instance Roman Triarii (the most well equipped veteran infantry in a Roman manifold) were held right at the back whilst all the unskilled infantry went up the front and soaked up the arrows or what have you, so technically they are getting less time to use their skills and so are the poor plebs in front of them (as they would commonly only last one or two battles). I think ancient warriors had a lot of things that a modern soldier doesnt, but superior skills isnt one of them.

Forgive my rambling but I am a military history geek and have studied battles from the 1st Punic war to the Battle of Haifa street in modern Baghdad and love comparing the differences in the two and seeing how far combat has come. I would hope that student would slowly surpass master as years wound on, and if so then multiply that by thousands of years and you have a huge evolution in combative techniques.

Lachlan.

From what i studied it would seem that the skill sets required for the different ages has adapted and changed, Maybe when the whole civilisation goes up in flames and it turns to Mad Max times then we would have to resort back to old proven ways of battle and individual fighting situations...because of the losses of resources to build such weapons, You would need to go back to using crude weapons..or using remants of what ever is left over.

For me i think there would have been skillful expeienced warriors in old times...and that alot of fighting techniques of this age have lost there potency to accomodate for sporting activities.

I read that many ancient warriors had plenty time to trian for instance a spartan would start training at age of 8 years...a knight would start at age18...there are many different ranks amongst the army today such as the civilian form constricted armys right up to the well train marines...this was just the case as in old times.

All im trying to say is that ancient warriors may have had far better skill than alot today, but the methods of combat now have changed. As even in our Ving tsun system weapons are an extension of our forms.

Well how contradicting...according to most dentists to much children are going to the dentist with dental problems caused by our food. Which industry is running what that is the key. Here is the flip side of the coin my friend, check this site out and ya might learn something http://heritage-key.com/publication/manthropology ;

The book, Manthropology: The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male, by Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, describes many examples of the inadequacy of the modern male, calling them as a class, "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet." Twenty thousand years ago six male Australian Aborigines chasing prey left footprints in a muddy lake shore that became fossilized. Analysis of the footprints shows one of them was running at 37 kph (23 mph), only 5 kph slower than Usain Bolt was traveling at when he ran the 100 meters in world record time of 9.69 seconds in Beijing last year. But Bolt had been the recipient of modern training, and had the benefits of spiked running shoes and a rubberized track, whereas the Aboriginal man was running barefoot in soft mud. Given the modern conditions, the man, dubbed T8, could have reached speeds of 45 kph, according to McAllister.